Noted. Let's see what it'll yield. However, please do try to judge the proposals, instead of very blindly implement them. Arguing might be unproductive but, as I mentioned in the past, generally annoying and likely inactionable tags are likewise very unproductive for us! :)
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020, 6:24 pm Felix Lechner, <felix.lech...@lease-up.com> wrote: > Hi Mattia, > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 8:58 AM Mattia Rizzolo <mat...@debian.org> wrote: > > > > I don't think I have much voice here, but tbh I feel like this is > totally artificially adding > > restraints that have no real reason to exist. > > That sweeping statement does not cover either (1) the accidental > installation errors that can occur when people use cp(1) instead of > install(1) to copy files, or (2) the degradation of style and > placement logic that happens with repetitive paths. > > > It's alright to think that at times this might be hiding a packaging > error, but honestly most of > > those case are usually self-evident and IME very rarely are a real > problem. > > Please remember I am closing bugs for requested features. I do not > argue much because I find it unproductive. Instead, I implement > everything that is remotely reasonable. > > I, too, have found repetitive paths annoying in the past, and have > seen installation errors in which a destination folder was > accidentally duplicated. > > Let's reserve judgment until we see how the check performs in the > wild. In the end, you may well be right. But we don't know that yet. > > Kind regards > Felix Lechner >
